Would you allow this?

billd91 said:

If the stealthy character is successfully hidden, in fact you can’t see them with normal vision—they’re too good at staying out of it. That’s the effect of blowing your perception check. The “invisibility”of being successfully hidden may be relatively easily broken by such mundane things as a change of vantage point without having to resort to magical means of cutting through an invisibility spell. But the basic equivalence of the condition is there as long as the failed perception applies.

Click to expand...

IMO, there are two different physical states.

1. Invisible- a state (brought on by magic, or some other agent) in which someone, can stare right at you, and not see you. You cannot achieve
true "invisibility" with a Stealth check.

2. Unseen- That state by which you are literally "hiding in plain sight" but can be seen, if someone stares right at you, specifically looking for you.
These are brought on by a Stealth check all the time. Failed passive perception happens all the time, and many cat owners who have animals with
deceptive markings, like Brown Tabbys, can testify they walk by their cat all the time and simply don't "see" them, they go unnoticed, hence unseen.
They are in plain sight, perfectly visible, but the eye doesn't pick them out of the background, and discern they are there.


Yes there are ways to defeat invisibility, but if no one is looking for you, or notices, being unseen is just as good,
for many working purposes.

Maxperson said:

The wording of invisible is "You can’t be seen by normal forms of vision." Not isn't seen. Not won't be seen. Not will not be seen. But can't be seen. As in, it's not possible to see an invisible person with normal vision. That means that the only important part is whether you can(as in it's possible) see someone who is hidden.

Click to expand...

And if X is hidden from Y, then X can't be seen by Y's normal vision.

You keep talking about Y defeating X's cover (by "walking around the box X is hiding behind") - but doing that means that X is no longer hidden from Y, which of course means that (assuming that X has no other source of invisibility) X is no longer invisible to Y, and hence it is no longer true that Y cannot see X with normal vision.

There is no contradiction or ambiguity here. The interesting questions in 4e generally are not about how basic hiding or invisilbility works, but rather adjudication of the fiction. Eg suppose that a person using the Invisibility spell (who is thereby eligible to make a Stealth check, because enjoying total concealment) is doused by an opponent in dust and flour - what bonus does that give that opponent to his/her Perception check to notice the invisible person?

Or, suppose that a warlock successfully attacks an opponent with Eyebite, thereby becoming invisible to that opponent by way of a Charm effect. What is the DC for an ally's Diplomacy check (or some other check?) to break that ensorcellment, thereby rendering the warlock visible once again to the opponent?

pemerton said:

And if X is hidden from Y, then X can't be seen by Y's normal vision.

Click to expand...

X can be seen by Y's normal vision. It just takes a perception roll, and if that fails, then try again until you find Y. You're still confusing "is not seen," which results from a failed roll, with "can't be seen," which means that it's not possible to ever see.

You keep talking about Y defeating X's cover (by "walking around the box X is hiding behind") - but doing that means that X is no longer hidden from Y, which of course means that (assuming that X has no other source of invisibility) X is no longer invisible to Y, and hence it is no longer true that Y cannot see X with normal vision.

Click to expand...

Yes, it means that X is no longer hidden BECAUSE X WAS SEEN BY NORMAL VISION. The seeing happens first. Also, I note you left out perception checks which I have also mentioned.

Maxperson said:

X can be seen by Y's normal vision. It just takes a perception roll, and if that fails, then try again until you find Y. You're still confusing "is not seen," which results from a failed roll, with "can't be seen," which means that it's not possible to ever see.

Click to expand...

The 4e rules are not a statement of in-fiction causal processes. They are a statement of processes of mechanical resolution. In this partiuclar case,succeeding on the Perception check (which is something a person at the table does, not something that a character in the fiction does) means that X loses hidden status, thus ceasing to be inivsible, and thus being able to be seen by Y's normal vision.

Maxperson said:

Yes, it means that X is no longer hidden BECAUSE X WAS SEEN BY NORMAL VISION. The seeing happens first. Also, I note you left out perception checks which I have also mentioned.

Click to expand...

No. X is no longer hidden because X lost cover and/or concealment. As a result, X ceases to be invisible to Y and hence can be seen by Y's normal visioun.

The rules state this quite clearly (PHB2, p 222): If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, uyou don't remain hidden from that enemy.

But while X retains cover and concealment, then if the Stealth check beats the Perception check X is hidden from Y, hence invisible to Y, hence unable to be seen by Y's normal vision.

pemerton said:

The 4e rules are not a statement of in-fiction causal processes. They are a statement of processes of mechanical resolution. In this partiuclar case,succeeding on the Perception check (which is something a person at the table does, not something that a character in the fiction does) means that X loses hidden status, thus ceasing to be inivsible, and thus being able to be seen by Y's normal vision.

Click to expand...

Horse pucky!

From perception: "Opposed Check: Perception vs. Stealth when trying to spot or hear a creature using Stealth. Your check might be modified by distance or if you’re listening through a door or a wall (see the table)."

From skill training: "Training in a skill means that you have some combination of formal instruction, practical experience, and natural aptitude using that skill."

From using skill: "When you use a skill, you make a skill check. This check represents your training, your natural talent (your ability modifier), your overall experience (one half your level), other applicable factors (relevant bonuses), and sheer luck (a die roll)."

Those are all in fiction things the PC is doing. Hell, using skills explicitly says it represents what the character is doing in the fiction. Succeeding at the perception check is in fact(no matter how much you protest otherwise) an in fiction example of the PC seeing the hider with normal vision.

No. X is no longer hidden because X lost cover and/or concealment. As a result, X ceases to be invisible to Y and hence can be seen by Y's normal visioun.

The rules state this quite clearly (PHB2, p 222): If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, uyou don't remain hidden from that enemy.

But while X retains cover and concealment, then if the Stealth check beats the Perception check X is hidden from Y, hence invisible to Y, hence unable to be seen by Y's normal vision.

Click to expand...

Yes, and there is a single reason why that occurs. It's because that hider is seen with normal vision. No normal vision seeing the hider, the hider remains hidden. You refuse to accept the proper order of events, insisting(absurdly I might add) that the hider becomes unhidden before he is even seen.

Maxperson said:

Succeeding at the perception check is in fact(no matter how much you protest otherwise) an in fiction example of the PC seeing the hider with normal vision.

Click to expand...

Succeeding at a check is something that takes place sitting around the table, in the real world, where a die was rolled, some number added to it, and the result compared to a difficulty. None of that happens in the fiction.

In the real world, following the game mechanics as described in the PHB2, it goes more-or-less like this: Y's player rolls a Perception check, and X's player rolls (or has already rolled) a Stealth check. The roll for Y beats the roll for X, and so Y's player succeeds on the opposed check. Hence X is no longer hidden from Y. Hence X is no longer invisible to Y. Hence Y can see X with normal vision, and does so.

In the fiction, it might unfold along the following lines: Y peers intently at the place where s/he believes X to be. Whether by dint of visual acuity, or perhaps because X does something to give him-/herself away (s/he coughs, or moves, or inadvertently breaks cover), or perhaps because an animal notices X and Y notices that animal - the mechanics don't tell us which of these, or some other possibility, happened - Y finally spots X despite X's attempt to remain concealed.

I think both the process of resolution, and the fiction that it implies, are pretty straightforward most of the time. (In my posts I've called out some trickier cases, like using dust or flour to defeat an Invisibility spell, or talking to an ally to help them shrug off ensorcellment by a warlock, but you have not engaged with those.) I think it is quite a bit clearer than 5e rules for hiding, which seem to generate endless dispute and uncertainty.

pemerton said:

Succeeding at a check is something that takes place sitting around the table, in the real world, where a die was rolled, some number added to it, and the result compared to a difficulty. None of that happens in the fiction.

Click to expand...

Correct. In the game that success translates into the PC seeing a hider with normal vision.

In the real world, following the game mechanics as described in the PHB2, it goes more-or-less like this: Y's player rolls a Perception check, and X's player rolls (or has already rolled) a Stealth check. The roll for Y beats the roll for X, and so Y's player succeeds on the opposed check. Hence X is no longer hidden from Y. Hence X is no longer invisible to Y. Hence Y can see X with normal vision, and does so.[/quote[

And in the game world it goes like this. Y's character walks into the room. X's character has already hidden(13 stealth). The roll by Y's player was a 15, so Y's character sees X with normal vision, which means that X is no longer hidden.

X's character cannot possibly be no longer hidden BEFORE he is seen by Y's character. It's not logical. You don't just pop out of hiding from wherever you are so that you can be seen. The order of events is hidden-->seen-->unhidden. Before X is seen, there is nothing to make X unhidden.

Click to expand...

Maxperson said:

Correct. In the game that success translates into the PC seeing a hider with normal vision.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, that success means the stealthy character /is no longer Hidden/, thus no longer Invisible, and, now, the successful creature knows where he is and can see him (as long as he doesn't have total concealment from some other source that is).

In the real world, following the game mechanics as described in the PHB2, it goes more-or-less like this: Y's player rolls a Perception check, and X's player rolls (or has already rolled) a Stealth check. The roll for Y beats the roll for X, and so Y's player succeeds on the opposed check. Hence X is no longer hidden from Y. Hence X is no longer invisible to Y. Hence Y can see X with normal vision, and does so.

Click to expand...

Correct.

And in the game world it goes like this. Y's character walks into the room. X's character has already hidden(13 stealth). The roll by Y's player was a 15, so Y's character sees X with normal vision, which means that X is no longer hidden.

X's character cannot possibly be no longer hidden BEFORE he is seen by Y's character. It's not logical. You don't just pop out of hiding from wherever you are so that you can be seen. The order of events is hidden-->seen-->unhidden. Before X is seen, there is nothing to make X unhidden.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

You might picture it in the game world like this:

A moves into a room full of, say, crates, and hides amongst them, B is patrolling the area and checks the room, he notices something ( a noise, a shadow, a motion, a footprint in the dust, whatever: depends on how you imagine the contested check playing out ) that draws his attention to A, giving away his hiding place, knowing something's there, he carefully looks into that area: B can now see A trying to hide among the crates.

How you describe powers or imagine the results of checks is up to you.

If you willfully imagine them in a nonsensical way, of course they'll be nonsensical.

Tony Vargas said:

Incorrect, that success means the stealthy character /is no longer Hidden/, thus no longer Invisible, and, now, the successful creature knows where he is and can see him (as long as he doesn't have total concealment from some other source that is).

Click to expand...

You're missing the step where the creature is seen first. The entire reason that the perception check works and the creature becomes unhidden is due to being seen with normal vision. You're argument is.... creature hides-->other creature makes perception check-->creature becomes inexplicably unhidden-->creature is seen. That's just nonsensical. You don't see the creature after it becomes unhidden, because quite literally in 4e hidden = unseen+unheard. Until seen, the creature does not become unhidden via the perception check.

A moves into a room full of, say, crates, and hides amongst them, B is patrolling the area and checks the room, he notices something ( a noise, a shadow, a motion, a footprint in the dust, whatever: depends on how you imagine the contested check playing out ) that draws his attention to A, giving away his hiding place, knowing something's there, he carefully looks into that area: B can now see A trying to hide among the crates.

Click to expand...

However you get there, B saw A with normal vision, which causes A to become unhidden.

Maxperson said:

You're missing the step where the creature is seen first. The entire reason that the perception check works and the creature becomes unhidden is due to being seen with normal vision

Click to expand...

No, Max, you are inserting that step where it does not exist.

Maybe you're still stuck in 3.0, when Spot & Listen were separate skills, but in 4e & 5e any senses can all fall under perception - probably the 6th sense EGG alluded to, also - so a successful Per check means you've located the Hidden creature, at which point you'll be able to see him if he's not got invisibility or heavy obscurement or blocked LoS from something else.

Them's the rules, and they're clearer than most in D&D history.

.

You're argument is.... creature hides-->other creature makes perception check-->creature becomes inexplicably unhidden-->creature is seen.

Click to expand...

Nothing inexplicable about it, we've explicted it to you repeatedly. It's perfectly clear.

Try thinking about this: when you are magically invisible in 4e, everyone knows what square you're in, unless you beat them on a stealth check to become hidden.

What happens if you fail that Stealth check? They can't see you, but you're not Hidden.